Slashdot Mirror

it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...

Depends on what your definition of "too often" is. I mean, pretty much for the past 25-30 years at least, the only real way to increase your salary and position was the change jobs. Sure, you don't want to be doing it every year, but every 2-3 years, sure.

At least if you are a W2 employee.

...the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior.

This is kind of analogous to the marijuana laws in the US, I mean, the polled majority of US citizen want to see it legalized, or at least taken off the Federal Schedule I level, yet, you can't see any real movement yet by Federal congress critters to enact this change.

That's why you have to be ever vigilant and scrutinize every new law, or Federal/State program, because once it is enacted, it is damned hard to ever get rid of it....

Wasn't there like a telephone fee, that was still around linked to the Spanish-American war that was only rescinded like a decade or so ago?

Shit like that just hangs around forever.

Only 40 years of tradition of releasing them so that a candidate's personal financial interests are in the open as they make political decisions. That's pretty strong "public interest" grounds to present them publicly.

While I don't agree with Wikileaks trying to obtain them illegally/illicitly, it shouldn't be necessary to try that. Trump should have turned them over like like practically everybody else, and it's appalling that he hasn't, especially when he said last year that he would.

And Nixon did so while he was under audit.

And many of the recent VPs have released their tax forms too. When you look at this archive of past candidate and elected Presidents and VPs, it's pretty obvious that Trump is defying all sense of transparency and tradition. I suppose that's the norm for him, but there's no legitimate reason why he can't provide them. He doesn't want to. that's the sole reason. Which leads to the question why he doesn't.

Even Santorum released four years of tax returns, and he wasn't even the nominee.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

I find calls for âoetax reformâ to be somewhat comical, when you take into account the history of American taxation.

The first income tax was in 1862:
âoeThe income tax is imposed upon a certain proportion of the income of these two classes, viz:
1st. Every person residing in the United States; and every citizen residing abroad who is in the employment of the Government of the United States.
2nd. Every citizen of the United States residing abroad and not in the employment of the United States.

Every person in the first class will be taxed at the rate of three percent when his or her annual gains, profits, or income exceed $600 and do not exceed $10,000. Every person in the first class will be taxed at the rate of five percent when his or her annual gains, profits, or income exceed $10,000, after the following deductionsâ¦â (From the 1962 Federal Income tax Return http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/9134d0498e7c820085256e4400040844?OpenDocument )

$600 in 1862 is $15,000 in 2007.

Congress then got fast and loose with their terms and the Supreme Court over turned a law in 1894 in the Pollock Case, because the language was not clear if it violated the Constitution or not. This then was the impetus for the 16th amendment, which is a very poorly worded amendment⦠But eventually we get to a tax of 1% on incomes over $3000 ($75,000 in 2007), topping out at only 6% in incomes of excess than $500,000 (12,500,000).

Those are truly modest amounts compared to what we pay today.

Prior to our modern income tax scheme, the Federal government was funded mainly by import tariffs. Congress would get to bicker on what to raise or lower the tariff on, sugar and cotton were favorites. The problem was this meant a man of meager means paid a larger portion of his earnings to fund the federal government. It was then proposed that the government be able to tax the vast sums of accumulated wealth of the likes of the Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgans, etc, which held about 80% of the wealth of the nation. The reasoning was money that creates money through investment should be taxed because no effort is expended in the creation of the additional wealth. Also, as an excise tax on the increase, the original principal is left untouched to continue to grow.

The speeches in congress at the time were quite noble, the idea was to remove the burden of funding the federal government from the poor or common man to those who could better afford to pay it. People spoke nobly about it, and that is was an instrument that would be wielded with considerable care as it would a direct line into the bank account and household of every American.

Given our current state of affairs: 30%+ taxes, bail out after bail out, it seems that any modern tax âoereformâ is just a shell game. True reform could only come as a consequence of government reform, and specifically the role of government. As we go forward, we continually enlarge the role of the federal government. We never talk about doing away with federal governmental operation, because we think more of something we want must be better. For example, the Department of Education. We all want education, so we are too scared to eliminate the department of it, because that might mean that our county-operated schools might suffer (how exactly?). We are contemplating national healthcare which we all know to be an active industry full of people inventing new ways to spend money. It grows 3x the rate of the GNP.

People are going to the polls today to vote for either big government or bigger government.

I am reminded of the words of Alexander Tyler (1787):
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters

What increase in taxes?

During the 1920s, four tax reduction acts were enacted, with the Revenue Act of 1924 providing tax rebates to individuals for 1923. The corporate income tax rate was slightly higher at the end of the decade than at the beginning, but the overall corporate burden was reduced as a result of the increase in the surtax exemption and the repeal of the war-excess profits and capital stock taxes.

Most of the excise taxes were either repealed or greatly reduced during the 1920s. The only important excise tax existing by the end of the decade was the tax on tobacco, which yielded $434 million in 1929. FEDERAL TAXATION: AN ABBREVIATED HISTORY

Tax increases would come after 1929 - in a failed attempt to balance the federal budget. As for the tariff, it was orthodox Republicanism:

The return of Republicans to national power in 1920 led to a resumption of protectionist legislation. By now a power in the Senate, Smoot was a close economic adviser to Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. In 1923 the Fordney-McCumber Tariff raised rates again, including those on Cuban sugar, a direct competitor with Utah's beet sugar industry. With Smoot's ascension to the chairmanship of the Finance Committee even higher rates were assured. In 1930 President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which boosted average duties on imports to 53 percent, the highest in American history. While Smoot saw this legislation as the culmination of his protectionist career, most economists then and since have assailed the tariff's disastrous effect on world trade at a time when the domestic economy of the U.S. was already suffering. The higher rates, about one-third greater than previous duties, made it more difficult for foreign nations to purchase American goods and pay off their war debts. In retaliation, some twenty-five nations raised their duties, making American goods more expensive. By the time the Democrats took power in 1932 and lowered the tariffs under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934 the world economy was in a tailspin.
Smoot never fully acknowledged the unintended consequences of his legislation. In fact, he argued in the depths of the depression that the rate might not be high enough. The 1930 tariff was "the Great Protectionist's" proudest achievement. Reed Smoot and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, 1930

The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by cartelizing key industries. In fact, it was when these policies were repealed in the 1940s that economic growth started to accelerate again.

The U.S. in wartime was a command economy.

The word "cartel" may never have been used, but this was in fact how things got done.

You produced what the government told you to produce. Wages, prices and profits were controlled. Industries were pushed and pummeled into "rationalization." -- all-out production for war.

The Ford Motor Company came within an inch of being nationalized - labor and management at each other's throats, and at the heart of the problem, a rapidly aging, mercurial and paranoid Henry Ford.

>The first levied inheritance taxes were used as financing during the Civil War circa 1860.

"This species of tax has again and again been imposed, although only temporarily, by the National Government. It was first imposed by the act of July 6, 1797"

Treats the War on Terrorism as a War, not a law enforcement problem

Which is why we've been searching for WMD's in Iraq, at the cost of over 100,000 civilian casualties + 200 billion some odd dollars, and 1,000 lives of US forces.

Treats the Poles, Italians, British, Australians and the 28 other nations allied to us in our fight against terrorism as valued friends

Friends, yea, but 28 nations that constitute about 10% of the total resources being used to invade, I mean, remove Sadam from power.

Actually paid taxes on his income instead of sheltering most of it from funding the government

Why shelter it when you can simply cut it? Bush policy actually allows more companies to hide their incomes. Here's an interesting site BTW. I didn't know that being the VP of the US was that lucrative.

Understands that a "plan" is more than just a laundry-list of Monday-morning complaints you throw out whenever your opponent actually accomplishes something in the big game Sunday evening.

Name those accomplishments exactly. And what exactly is Kerry complaining about that isn't something of importance? If there is an important issue that a president is not addressing or is not handling properly to the detriment of his country, shouldn't it be addressed? Get a grip!

Has liberated 50 million people from totalitarian regimes, including liberated millions of women from the yolk of religious oppression.

No, he's still president, remember?

Seriously though, the administration never talks about Afghanistan except in soundbites. Then we talk about elections and womens rights, elections that have been delayed for over three years and are still continuing. Women just came under the opression of totalitarian warlords. Why are they still there anyways? And as for Iraq, well, we're still there, they are not free, and we've killed over 100,000 of them, not counting those injured. And you can make every argument you want about it being the fault of the terrorists, but because of our administrations inability to truly win the peace, more and more suppore is gained for the side of the terrorists. And we still look like the bad guy because there is almost no one else there except us. We started it, now we can't finish it.

All we had before was a bunch of crazies shouting
"They're evil! they're destroying our country"
And nobody really listened, cause they were crazy.
Now we've got a bunch of crazies shouting
"See! They're evil! They're destroying our country!"
And people are starting to listen because they might not be so crazy.
Now, quick! Who am I talking about? Us or them?

Avenge the threats against his father ... disregard due to no links to supporting data and it contradicts the available evidence Joint Authorization and US Public Law 105-338 and UN Report on Subject (read all 17-pages :-) and UN Resolutions violated by Iraq (btw, each resolution had 'diplo-speak' as in "serious consequences" authorizing war - don't say the US did it without the UN ;-)

Look good to the world for booting Hussein. Opps, that didn't work out to[o] well. ... disregard due to no link(s) to supporting data ... BTW, it didn't work out too well in post-Nazi Europe/Japan either

Get a [childish expletive deleted]load of money to Halliburton and make him and Cheney some big ass bucks. Didn't you know that Bush also owns a large amount of Halliburton stock? ... disregard due to there being no evidence that Bush Jr. ownes any Halliburton stock Bush 2003 Tax Return ... perform further research with respect to Cheney due to an "it's a stretch" connection Cheney 2003 Tax Return ... and also here leading to:

The forms Thursday showed he collected $162,392 in deferred compensation [think 401k - therefore this is not the big bad Halliburton connection you claim] from Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services company he headed until Aug. 16, 2000. Cheney elected in 1998 to recoup over five years a portion of the money he made in 1999 as chief executive officer of Halliburton ... SUGGESTION: you should chat with some HR compensation folk who can explain this other "deferred compensation" plan (its the 'other' 401k the HR types don't talk about to individual contributors). Most companies have this 'other' 401k plan - lucrative but very restrictive tax-wise - perhaps almost like a blind-trust. However, IANAL also IANACPA

From Christopher Hitchens' review of "Unfairenheit 9/11":

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism . Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists , one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ... (Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945)

... and still more from "Orwell's Notes on Nationalism" ... thank you Chris Hitchens from tickling my intellect such that I dug for more info ... love the internet

Avenge the threats against his father ... disregard due to no links to supporting data and it contradicts the available evidence Joint Authorization and US Public Law 105-338 and UN Report on Subject (read all 17-pages :-) and UN Resolutions violated by Iraq (btw, each resolution had 'diplo-speak' as in "serious consequences" authorizing war - don't say the US did it without the UN ;-)

Look good to the world for booting Hussein. Opps, that didn't work out to[o] well. ... disregard due to no link(s) to supporting data ... BTW, it didn't work out too well in post-Nazi Europe/Japan either

Get a [childish expletive deleted]load of money to Halliburton and make him and Cheney some big ass bucks. Didn't you know that Bush also owns a large amount of Halliburton stock? ... disregard due to there being no evidence that Bush Jr. ownes any Halliburton stock Bush 2003 Tax Return ... perform further research with respect to Cheney due to an "it's a stretch" connection Cheney 2003 Tax Return ... and also here leading to:

The forms Thursday showed he collected $162,392 in deferred compensation [think 401k - therefore this is not the big bad Halliburton connection you claim] from Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services company he headed until Aug. 16, 2000. Cheney elected in 1998 to recoup over five years a portion of the money he made in 1999 as chief executive officer of Halliburton ... SUGGESTION: you should chat with some HR compensation folk who can explain this other "deferred compensation" plan (its the 'other' 401k the HR types don't talk about to individual contributors). Most companies have this 'other' 401k plan - lucrative but very restrictive tax-wise - perhaps almost like a blind-trust. However, IANAL also IANACPA

From Christopher Hitchens' review of "Unfairenheit 9/11":

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism . Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists , one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ... (Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945)

... and still more from "Orwell's Notes on Nationalism" ... thank you Chris Hitchens from tickling my intellect such that I dug for more info ... love the internet